Here we go again with "true Generics". Type erasure makes interop easy (for an almost insignificant cost), including with Java prior to generics. But that's also what makes different languages on the Java platform interop so well (contrast with the CLR, where this is not the case; they've baked variance into the runtime and are paying a high price for that decision). If Java had baked their type system into JVM, Scala, Kotlin, Groovy would have to dance around that. Haskell, for example, erases all types, not just type parameters (well, sort of; it does reify the constructor tag/discriminator, which corresponds to type information in Java), and people get fancy with types in Scala, too. The only real annoyance erasure brings is that you cannot overload a method with another that erases to the same type.

All in all, The JVM is leading not only CLR on all fronts, but pretty much any other runtime. C# compilers and GCs are at least a decade behind Java's. You may argue on how important those things are compared to other tradeoffs, but those are the areas where Java was designed to compete at, and those are the areas where it is leading by a wide margin.

Edit: when Java was first introduced, its original designers stated their intention to construct a conservative, low-innovation frontend language, and a high-innovation runtime. In many respects, .NET has the opposite design. You may prefer one or the other and that's OK, but it makes comparing the two on any single aspect very problematic. Of course Java won't keep up on language innovation compared to .NET, and of course .NET won't keep up with Java on runtime innovation -- they each choose to get their competitive advantage in different aspects.